Articles | Volume 18, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3065-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3065-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| 
27 May 2025
Methods for assessment of models |
| 27 May 2025
| 27 May 2025
ClimKern v1.2: a new Python package and kernel repository for calculating radiative feedbacks
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA
NOAA Center for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing Technologies (CESSRST-II), City College of New York, New York, NY, USA
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, NY, USA
NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, OK, USA
Ivan Mitevski
Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Ryan J. Kramer
NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
Michael Previdi
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA
Lorenzo M. Polvani
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA
Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Chanyoung Park, Brian J. Soden, Ryan J. Kramer, Tristan S. L'Ecuyer, and Haozhe He
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 7299–7313, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7299-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7299-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study addresses the long-standing challenge of quantifying the impact of aerosol–cloud interactions. Using satellite observations, reanalysis data, and a "perfect-model" cross-validation, we show that explicitly accounting for aerosol–cloud droplet activation rates is key to accurately estimating ERFaci (effective radiative forcing due to aerosol–cloud interactions). Our results indicate a smaller and less uncertain ERFaci than previously assessed, implying the reduced role of aerosol–cloud interactions in shaping climate sensitivity.
Beth Dingley, James A. Anstey, Marta Abalos, Carsten Abraham, Tommi Bergman, Lisa Bock, Sonya Fiddes, Birgit Hassler, Ryan J. Kramer, Fei Luo, Fiona M. O'Connor, Petr Šácha, Isla R. Simpson, Laura J. Wilcox, and Mark D. Zelinka
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript defines as a list of variables and scientific opportunities which are requested from the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track to address open atmospheric science questions. The list reflects the output of a large public community engagement effort, coordinated across autumn 2025 through to summer 2025.
Masatomo Fujiwara, Bomin Sun, Anthony Reale, Domenico Cimini, Salvatore Larosa, Lori Borg, Christoph von Rohden, Michael Sommer, Ruud Dirksen, Marion Maturilli, Holger Vömel, Rigel Kivi, Bruce Ingleby, Ryan J. Kramer, Belay Demoz, Fabio Madonna, Fabien Carminati, Owen Lewis, Brett Candy, Christopher Thomas, David Edwards, Noersomadi, Kensaku Shimizu, and Peter Thorne
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 2919–2955, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2919-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2919-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We assess and illustrate the benefits of high-altitude attainment of balloon-borne radiosonde soundings up to and beyond 10 hPa level from various aspects. We show that the extra costs and technical challenges involved in consistent attainment of high ascents are more than outweighed by the benefits for a broad variety of real-time and delayed-mode applications. Consistent attainment of high ascents should therefore be pursued across the balloon observational network.
Robert J. Allen, Xueying Zhao, Cynthia A. Randles, Ryan J. Kramer, Bjørn H. Samset, and Christopher J. Smith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 11207–11226, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11207-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11207-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Present-day methane shortwave absorption mutes 28% (7–55%) of the surface warming associated with its longwave absorption. The precipitation increase associated with the longwave radiative effects of the present-day methane perturbation is also muted by shortwave absorption but not significantly so. Methane shortwave absorption also impacts the magnitude of its climate feedback parameter, largely through the cloud feedback.
Stephanie Fiedler, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Christopher J. Smith, Paul Griffiths, Ryan J. Kramer, Toshihiko Takemura, Robert J. Allen, Ulas Im, Matthew Kasoar, Angshuman Modak, Steven Turnock, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Duncan Watson-Parris, Daniel M. Westervelt, Laura J. Wilcox, Alcide Zhao, William J. Collins, Michael Schulz, Gunnar Myhre, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2387–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate scientists want to better understand modern climate change. Thus, climate model experiments are performed and compared. The results of climate model experiments differ, as assessed in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. This article gives insights into the challenges and outlines opportunities for further improving the understanding of climate change. It is based on views of a group of experts in atmospheric composition–climate interactions.
Kevin DallaSanta and Lorenzo M. Polvani
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8843–8862, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8843-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8843-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Volcanic eruptions cool the earth by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Paradoxically, it has been suggested that they may also warm the surface, but the evidence for this is scant. Here, we show that a small warming can be seen in a climate model for large-enough eruptions. However, even for eruptions much larger than those that have occurred in the past two millennia, post-eruption winters over Eurasia are indistinguishable from those occurring without a prior eruption.
Adam A. Scaife, Mark P. Baldwin, Amy H. Butler, Andrew J. Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Steven C. Hardiman, Peter Haynes, Alexey Yu Karpechko, Eun-Pa Lim, Shunsuke Noguchi, Judith Perlwitz, Lorenzo Polvani, Jadwiga H. Richter, John Scinocca, Michael Sigmond, Theodore G. Shepherd, Seok-Woo Son, and David W. J. Thompson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2601–2623, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Great progress has been made in computer modelling and simulation of the whole climate system, including the stratosphere. Since the late 20th century we also gained a much clearer understanding of how the stratosphere interacts with the lower atmosphere. The latest generation of numerical prediction systems now explicitly represents the stratosphere and its interaction with surface climate, and here we review its role in long-range predictions and projections from weeks to decades ahead.
Antara Banerjee, Amy H. Butler, Lorenzo M. Polvani, Alan Robock, Isla R. Simpson, and Lantao Sun
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6985–6997, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that simulated stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could lead to warmer Eurasian winters alongside a drier Mediterranean and wetting to the north. These effects occur due to the strengthening of the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex, which shifts the North Atlantic Oscillation to a more positive phase. We find the effects in our simulations to be much more significant than the wintertime effects of large tropical volcanic eruptions which inject much less sulfate aerosol.
Gillian D. Thornhill, William J. Collins, Ryan J. Kramer, Dirk Olivié, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Fiona M. O'Connor, Nathan Luke Abraham, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Susanne E. Bauer, Makoto Deushi, Louisa K. Emmons, Piers M. Forster, Larry W. Horowitz, Ben Johnson, James Keeble, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Jane P. Mulcahy, Gunnar Myhre, Pierre Nabat, Vaishali Naik, Naga Oshima, Michael Schulz, Christopher J. Smith, Toshihiko Takemura, Simone Tilmes, Tongwen Wu, Guang Zeng, and Jie Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 853–874, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-853-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-853-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper is a study of how different constituents in the atmosphere, such as aerosols and gases like methane and ozone, affect the energy balance in the atmosphere. Different climate models were run using the same inputs to allow an easy comparison of the results and to understand where the models differ. We found the effect of aerosols is to reduce warming in the atmosphere, but this effect varies between models. Reactions between gases are also important in affecting climate.
Rei Chemke, Michael Previdi, Mark R. England, and Lorenzo M. Polvani
The Cryosphere, 14, 4135–4144, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4135-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4135-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The increase in Antarctic surface mass balance (SMB, precipitation vs. evaporation/sublimation) is projected to mitigate sea-level rise. Here we show that nearly half of this increase over the 20th century is attributed to stratospheric ozone depletion and ozone-depleting substance (ODS) emissions. Our results suggest that the phaseout of ODS by the Montreal Protocol, and the recovery of stratospheric ozone, will act to decrease the SMB over the 21st century and the mitigation of sea-level rise.
Lorenzo M. Polvani and Suzana J. Camargo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13687–13700, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
On the basis of questionable early studies, it is widely believed that low-latitude volcanic eruptions cause winter warming over Eurasia. However, we here demonstrate that the winter warming over Eurasia following the 1883 Krakatau eruption was unremarkable and, in all likelihood, unrelated to that eruption. Confirming similar findings for the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, the new research demonstrates that no detectable Eurasian winter warming is to be expected after eruptions of similar magnitude.
Christopher J. Smith, Ryan J. Kramer, and Adriana Sima
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2157–2168, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2157-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2157-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Radiative kernels allow efficient diagnosis of climate feedbacks and radiative adjustments to an external forcing using standard climate model output. We present a radiative kernel derived from the UK Met Office's HadGEM3-GA7.1 climate model. We show that a highly resolved stratosphere is important for correctly diagnosing the stratospheric temperature adjustment to greenhouse gas forcings and, by extension, the instantaneous radiative forcing.
Jessica Oehrlein, Gabriel Chiodo, and Lorenzo M. Polvani
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 10531–10544, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10531-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10531-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Winter winds in the stratosphere 10–50 km above the surface impact climate at the surface. Prior studies suggest that this interaction between the stratosphere and the surface is affected by ozone. We compare two ways of including ozone in computer simulations of climate. One method is more realistic but more expensive. We find that the method of including ozone in simulations affects the surface climate when the stratospheric winds are unusually weak but not when they are unusually strong.
Cited articles
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607, 2012. a
Bani Shahabadi, M. and Huang, Y.: Logarithmic radiative effect of water vapor and spectral kernels, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 6000–6008, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021623, 2014. a
Block, K. and Mauritsen, T.: Forcing and feedback in the MPI-ESM-LR coupled model under abruptly quadrupled CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 676–691, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20041, 2013. a, b
Bonan, D. B., Kay, J. E., Feldl, N., and Zelinka, M. D.: Mid-latitude clouds contribute to Arctic amplification via interactions with other climate feedbacks, Environ. Res.-Clim., 4, 1, https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ada84b, 2025. a
Bony, S., Colman, R., Kattsov, V. M., Allan, R. P., Bretherton, C. S., Dufresne, J.-L., Hall, A., Hallegatte, S., Holland, M. M., Ingram, W., et al.: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes?, J. Climate, 19, 3445–3482, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3819.1, 2006. a
Buck, A. L.: New equations for computing vapor pressure and enhancement factor, J. Appl. Meteorol., 20, 1527–1532, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1981)020<1527:NEFCVP>2.0.CO;2, 1981. a
Colman, R. and McAvaney, B.: On tropospheric adjustment to forcing and climate feedbacks, Clim. Dynam., 36, 1649–1658, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1067-4, 2011. a
Colman, R. and Soden, B. J.: Water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks in the climate system, Rev. Modern Phys., 93, 045002, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.045002, 2021. a, b
Croll, J.: Climate and Time in Their Geological Relations: A Theory of Secular Changes of the Earth's Climate, Daldy, Isbister & Co., London, 1875. a
Curry, J. A., Schramm, J. L., and Ebert, E. E.: Sea ice-albedo climate feedback mechanism, J. Climate, 8, 240–247, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<0240:SIACFM>2.0.CO;2, 1995. a
Dong, Y., Proistosescu, C., Armour, K. C., and Battisti, D. S.: Attributing Historical and Future Evolution of Radiative Feedbacks to Regional Warming Patterns using a Green’s Function Approach: The Preeminence of the Western Pacific, J. Climate, 32, 5471–5491, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0843.1, 2019. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a
Feldl, N. and Roe, G. H.: The nonlinear and nonlocal nature of climate feedbacks, J. Climate, 26, 8289–8304, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00631.1, 2013. a
Feldl, N., Bordoni, S., and Merlis, T. M.: Coupled high-latitude climate feedbacks and their impact on atmospheric heat transport, J. Climate, 30, 189–201, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0324.1, 2017. a
Feldl, N., Po-Chedley, S., Singh, H. K., Hay, S., and Kushner, P. J.: Sea ice and atmospheric circulation shape the high-latitude lapse rate feedback, NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci., 3, 41, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00146-7, 2020. a
Forster, P., Richardson, T., Maycock, A. C., Smith, C. J., Samset, B. H., Myhre, G., Andrews, T., Pincus, R., and Schulz, M.: Recommendations for diagnosing effective radiative forcing from climate models for CMIP6, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 12460–12475, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025320, 2016. a
Goosse, H., Kay, J. E., Armour, K. C., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Chepfer, H., Docquier, D., Jonko, A., Kushner, P. J., Lecomte, O., Massonnet, F., et al.: Quantifying climate feedbacks in polar regions, Nat. Commun., 9, 1919, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04173-0, 2018. a, b, c
Graversen, R. G., Langen, P. L., and Mauritsen, T.: Polar amplification in CCSM4: Contributions from the lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, J. Climate, 27, 4433–4450, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00551.1, 2014. a
Gregory, J. M. and Andrews, T.: Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback parameters during the historical period, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 3911–3920, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068406, 2016. a
Held, I. M. and Shell, K. M.: Using relative humidity as a state variable in climate feedback analysis, J. Climate, 25, 2578–2582, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1, 2012. a, b
Hoyer, S. and Hamman, J.: xarray: ND labeled arrays and datasets in Python, J. Open Res. Softw., 5, 10–10, https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.148, 2017. a, b
Huang, H. and Huang, Y.: Radiative sensitivity quantified by a new set of radiation flux kernels based on the ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 3001–3021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-3001-2023, 2023. a, b, c, d
Huang, H., Huang, Y., Wei, Q., and Hu, Y.: Band-by-band spectral radiative kernels based on the ERA5 reanalysis, Sci. Data, 11, 237, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03080-y, 2024. a
Huang, Y., Ramaswamy, V., and Soden, B.: An investigation of the sensitivity of the clear-sky outgoing longwave radiation to atmospheric temperature and water vapor, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D5, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006906, 2007. a
Huang, Y., Xia, Y., and Tan, X.: On the pattern of CO2 radiative forcing and poleward energy transport, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 10–578, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027221, 2017. a, b
Huang, Y., Huang, H., and Shakirova, A.: The nonlinear radiative feedback effects in the Arctic warming, Front. Earth Sci., 9, 693779, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.693779, 2021. a
Ingram, W., Wilson, C., and Mitchell, J.: Modeling climate change: An assessment of sea ice and surface albedo feedbacks, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 94, 8609–8622, https://doi.org/10.1029/JD094iD06p08609, 1989. a
Janoski, T. P.: climkern-analysis-and-plots: v1.1.0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14757435, 2025. a
Janoski, T. P., Previdi, M., Chiodo, G., Smith, K. L., and Polvani, L. M.: Ultrafast Arctic amplification and its governing mechanisms, Environ. Res. Clim., 2, 035009, https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ace211, 2023. a, b
Janoski, T. P., Mitevski, I., and Kramer, R.: ClimKern Kernel & Data Repository (1.2.0), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14743752, 2025a. a, b
Janoski, T. P., Mitevski, I., and Wen, K.: ClimKern: a Python package for calculating radiative feedbacks, GitHub repository [data set], https://github.com/tyfolino/climkern (last access: 19 May 2025), 2025c. a
Kay, J. E., Deser, C., Phillips, A., Mai, A., Hannay, C., Strand, G., Arblaster, J. M., Bates, S. C., Danabasoglu, G., Edwards, J., Holland, M., Kushner, P., Lamarque, J.-F., Lawrence, D., Lindsay, K., Middleton, A., Munoz, E., Neale, R., Oleson, K., Polvani, L., and Vertenstein, M.: The Community Earth System Model (CESM) Large Ensemble Project: A Community Resource for Studying Climate Change in the Presence of Internal Climate Variability, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 1333–1349, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00255.1, 2015. a
Knutti, R. and Rugenstein, M. A.: Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models, P. T. Roy. Soc. A, 373, 20150146, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0146, 2015. a, b
Kramer, R. J., Matus, A. V., Soden, B. J., and L'Ecuyer, T. S.: Observation-based radiative kernels from CloudSat/CALIPSO, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 5431–5444, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029021, 2019. a, b, c
Lacis, A. A., Hansen, J. E., Russell, G. L., Oinas, V., and Jonas, J.: The role of long-lived greenhouse gases as principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature for past and future climate change, Tellus B, 65, 19734, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v65i0.19734, 2013. a
Laîné, A., Yoshimori, M., and Abe-Ouchi, A.: Surface Arctic amplification factors in CMIP5 models: land and oceanic surfaces and seasonality, J. Climate, 29, 3297–3316, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0497.1, 2016. a
Larson, E. J. and Portmann, R. W.: A temporal kernel method to compute effective radiative forcing in CMIP5 transient simulations, J. Climate, 29, 1497–1509, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0577.1, 2016. a
Lin, J.-L.: The double-ITCZ problem in IPCC AR4 coupled GCMs: Ocean–atmosphere feedback analysis, J. Climate, 20, 4497–4525, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4272.1, 2007. a
Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R. T.: The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model, J. Atmos. Sci., 32, 3–15, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2, 1975. a
Meyssignac, B., Chenal, J., Loeb, N., Guillaume-Castel, R., and Ribes, A.: Time-variations of the climate feedback parameter λ are associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Commun. Earth Environ., 4, 241, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00887-2, 2023. a
Mitevski, I., Orbe, C., Chemke, R., Nazarenko, L., and Polvani, L. M.: Non-Monotonic Response of the Climate System to Abrupt CO2 Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090861, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090861, 2021. a
Mitevski, I., Polvani, L. M., and Orbe, C.: Asymmetric Warming/Cooling Response to CO2 Increase/Decrease Mainly Due To Non-Logarithmic Forcing, Not Feedbacks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL097133, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL097133, 2022. a
Mitevski, I., Dong, Y., Polvani, L. M., Rugenstein, M., and Orbe, C.: Non-Monotonic Feedback Dependence Under Abrupt CO2 Forcing Due To a North Atlantic Pattern Effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL103617, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103617, 2023. a
Pendergrass, A. G.: apendergrass/cam5-kernels: Up to date codebase as of August 2019, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3359041, 2019. a, b, c
Pendergrass, A. G., Conley, A., and Vitt, F. M.: Surface and top-of-atmosphere radiative feedback kernels for CESM-CAM5, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 317–324, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-317-2018, 2018. a
Pincus, R., Buehler, S. A., Brath, M., Crevoisier, C., Jamil, O., Franklin Evans, K., Manners, J., Menzel, R. L., Mlawer, E. J., Paynter, D., Pernak, R. L., and Tellier, Y.: Benchmark calculations of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD033483, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033483, 2020. a
Previdi, M., Janoski, T. P., Chiodo, G., Smith, K. L., and Polvani, L. M.: Arctic amplification: A rapid response to radiative forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089933, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089933, 2020. a, b, c, d
Previdi, M., Smith, K. L., and Polvani, L. M.: Arctic amplification of climate change: a review of underlying mechanisms, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 093003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c29, 2021. a, b, c, d
Riihelä, A., Bright, R. M., and Anttila, K.: Recent strengthening of snow and ice albedo feedback driven by Antarctic sea-ice loss, Nat. Geosci., 14, 832–836, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00841-x, 2021. a
Roe, G. H. and Baker, M. B.: Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable?, Science, 318, 629–632, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.114473, 2007. a
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L., Hausfather, Z., Heydt, A. S. v. d., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris, J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska, K. B., and Zelinka, M. D.: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, 4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678, 2020. a, b, c
Shi, J. and Lohmann, G.: Considerable uncertainty of simulated Arctic temperature change in the mid-Holocene due to initial ocean perturbation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2023GL106337, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106337, 2024. a
Smith, C., Kramer, R., Myhre, G., Forster, P., Soden, B., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Hodnebrog, Ø., et al.: Understanding rapid adjustments to diverse forcing agents, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12–023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079826, 2018. a, b
Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., and Sima, A.: The HadGEM3-GA7.1 radiative kernel: the importance of a well-resolved stratosphere, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2157–2168, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2157-2020, 2020. a, b, c
Soden, B. J. and Held, I. M.: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models, J. Climate, 19, 3354–3360, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3799.1, 2006. a, b, c, d
Stuecker, M. F., Bitz, C. M., Armour, K. C., Proistosescu, C., Kang, S. M., Xie, S.-P., Kim, D., McGregor, S., Zhang, W., Zhao, S., et al.: Polar amplification dominated by local forcing and feedbacks, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 1076–1081, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0339-y, 2018. a
Thorsen, T. J., Kato, S., Loeb, N. G., and Rose, F. G.: Observation-based decomposition of radiative perturbations and radiative kernels, J. Climate, 31, 10039–10058, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0045.1, 2018. a
Tian, B. and Dong, X.: The double-ITCZ bias in CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6 models based on annual mean precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087232, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087232, 2020. a
Vial, J., Dufresne, J.-L., and Bony, S.: On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates, Clim. Dynam., 41, 3339–3362, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9, 2013. a, b
Wetherald, R. and Manabe, S.: Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1397–1416, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1988)045<1397:CFPIAG>2.0.CO;2, 1988. a
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., and Hartmann, D. L.: Computing and partitioning cloud feedbacks using cloud property histograms. Part II: Attribution to changes in cloud amount, altitude, and optical depth, J. Climate, 25, 3736–3754, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00248.1, 2012. a
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M., Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020. a, b, c
Zhang, R., Wang, H., Fu, Q., Pendergrass, A. G., Wang, M., Yang, Y., Ma, P.-L., and Rasch, P. J.: Local radiative feedbacks over the Arctic based on observed short-term climate variations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 5761–5770, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077852, 2018. a, b
Zhang, Y.: Introduction to the ISCCP-FH Radiative Kernels, https://data.giss.nasa.gov/isccp/kernels/docs/Zhang_Introduction_to_ISCCP-FH_radiative-kernels_v0_202309.pdf (last access: 28 January 2025), 2023. a
Zhu, T., Huang, Y., and Wei, H.: Estimating climate feedbacks using a neural network, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 3246–3258, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029223, 2019. a
Zhuang, J., dussin, r., Huard, D., Bourgault, P., Banihirwe, A., Raynaud, S., Malevich, B., Schupfner, M., Filipe, Levang, S., Gauthier, C., Jüling, A., Almansi, M., RichardScottOZ, RondeauG, Rasp, S., Smith, T. J., Stachelek, J., Plough, M., Pierre, Bell, R., Caneill, R., and Li, X.: pangeo-data/xESMF: v0.8.2, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8356796, 2023. a
Short summary
We developed ClimKern, a Python package and radiative kernel repository, to simplify calculating radiative feedbacks and make climate sensitivity studies more reproducible. Testing of ClimKern with sample climate model data reveals that radiative kernel choice may be more important than previously thought, especially in polar regions. Our work highlights the need for kernel sensitivity analyses to be included in future studies.
We developed ClimKern, a Python package and radiative kernel repository, to simplify calculating...
